3 ms·
Rethinking your fundamental assumptions is always a good idea, especially if progress seems to be stagnating. Some of the assumptions might be: - That thought
by motters 17y ago
Rethinking your fundamental assumptions is always a good idea, especially if progress seems to be stagnating.
Some of the assumptions might be:
- That thought occurs inside the head. To what extent is thought a process distributed across multiple individuals?
- That you can make a sharp delineation between reasoning and perception. Many AI systems assume that tasks like object recognition can be completely separated from the rest of the system as it's own module. Neuroscience, on the other hand, suggests that perception, memory and reasoning are all tightly integrated together.
- That the brain can be modeled as an electrochemical system. The mainstream view is that quantum effects play no significant role, and that Penrose & Hameroff are wrong.
- Retric 17y agoIMO, one of the fundamental problems with AI research is the idea that thought is important. When a chess program keeps track of the best moves nobody really cares how that thought is stored or retrieved. What's interesting is how to measure what thoughts are useful (for a given problem) and how to generate useful thoughts efficiently (better than random.) But, when people focus on thought implying something that people do, but earthworms don't do they get into a tailspin. Language as a portable method of conveying thought is a great subject of research. But, attempting to attack a human language in all it's glory is a huge pitfall. Nouns, verbs, additives, adverbs, intonation, tense, and a 29 years of knowledge and I frequently have no idea what someone is saying. But, linking the word ball, with the concept ball, with the sensory perception of ball might be possible today. Link that to some simple nouns like roll, toss, catch, etc and we can start a meaningful integration of language and actions.